Obama’s Federal War on Red States Continues

Oh.  You weren’t aware of Obama’s war on red states? You weren’t aware of his regime punishing states that DARE not vote for him?  Then wake up and smell the coffee.  Better yet, smell the pork.

Between the 2009 and 2013 fiscal years, funding for a wide swath of discretionary grant programs, from Head Start preschool education to anti drug initiatives, fell by an average of 40 percent in Republican-leaning states like Texas and Mississippi.

By contrast, funding to Democratic-leaning states such as California and politically competitive swing states like Ohio dropped by 25 percent.

And this is only one way in which Obama punishes red states.  Remember all those illegal aliens he practically invited to the U. S. last year?  I do.  He dumped them - and their diseases - on red states.

What is the Obama Regime doing? Is it deporting these illegal aliens? The Regime isn’t even deporting criminal illegal aliens. No, the Regime is dumping them. The Obama Regime, instead of calling the Embassies of the nations these children come from and arranging for their repatriation, is instead trying to find their family members in the United States for “reunification.”

The Regime is sending these children to Texas, Arizona and Oklahoma.

What do those three states have in common?

They are red states.

Obama was supposed to be this Great Uniter, a president of all Americans.  Instead, he is dividing us any number of ways . . . including red from blue.  And he is hardly a president working for those who oppose him.  Heck, he sends the IRS and any number of agencies after those who oppose him.

But there is a bigger picture here.  The Federal government is more and more becoming an instrument of blue states to put red states under their thumb.  Arbitrarily overturning red state laws and referendums on marriage is part of that as well.

And how long should red states put up with that?

An Update

This morning, a good-humored young woman at Goodreads graciously responded to my letter and notified me that I am no longer the author of Big Boobs but only of Pilot Point and God Knows What It’s Like to be a Teenager.

Well, that was fun while it lasted.

A Letter

I’ve just sent the following letter via e-mail.  I think readers will find it self-explanatory.

--------

Dear sirs/madams,

Good day.

I’ve just visited my Goodreads profile only to discover I am the author not only of Pilot Point and of God Knows What It’s Like to be a Teenager, but also of Big Boobs.  

Although the concept is indeed very interesting and one I myself have thought on frequently, I cannot in all honesty claim credit for this work of literature.

Far be it from me to claim credit for the talented, voluminous and well-rounded efforts of another.  Therefore, I must be honest and ask, albeit with some reluctance, how do I remove my supposed association from this book?

By the way, I have searched your help and other pages and have found no way to do this.  I have been tempted therefore to let this pass, but my conscience and integrity as an author will not allow me.

Thanks for your assistance.

Very warm regards,

mark marshall

author of Pilot Point, not of Big Boobs

A Time for Defiance

I’ve often wondered what it would take for states to tell the Feds what to do with themselves when they exceed their authority.  I contend an important time so to do passed when not one state defied Roe v. Wade.  And there have been any number of other times since.  But the states have been sheep meekly allowing the Feds to herd them to the slaughter of their rights.

But now that a steamroller driven by dictators in black robes and cheerleaded by Obama no less is flattening state marriage laws, perhaps a time for defiance has finally come.  Both the Chief Justice and Governor of Alabama have pledged to uphold that state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage after a fed judge nullified the overwhelming 2006 constitutional referendum. (Sound familiar?)

The statement by the Governor should be cut and pasted by other governors:

The people of Alabama elected me to uphold our state Constitution, and when I took the oath of office last week, that is what I promised to do. . . .  The people of Alabama voted in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between man and woman. As governor, I must uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed in Friday's ruling, and I will continue to oppose this ruling. The Federal government must not infringe on the rights of states.

And that is the big issue here – the rights of states and the rights of the people of those states to rule themselves.  Yes, same-sex marriage is an important issue in itself.  But whether or not states bow down to Fed tyranny is more important.

I would rather the presenting issue was one other than same-sex marriage.  (I’ve already mentioned Roe v. Wade.)  Those who either do not care about a constitutional balance between the federal government and the states or who put the gay agenda over every other consideration will surely compare Alabama’s defiance to defying Civil Rights laws and rulings during the 50’s and 60’s.  (I do have an idea to counteract this perception which I may share on a later post.)

But defiance, nullification even, has to be exercised sometime lest the states and their people become more and more pawns under the thumb of Fed tyrants.  And recent Fed rulings on same-sex marriage cry out for defiance.  The Constitution grants Fed judges authority to nullify voter-approved state constitutional amendments stating that marriage is between one man and one woman? A supposed right to same-sex marriage trumps state constitutions and democracy itself? Really? 

Such rulings are not only outrageous and tyrannical; they are absurd.  If these are not Fed overreaches that should be defied, then which are?

To those who think, for whatever reasons, that the states should not say “NO” to the Feds here, I indeed ask, then where?  How tyrannical, unconstitutional and absurd do Fed assertions of authority have to get before the states should say “NO”?  One reason the Federal government has become so tyrannical is the leaders of the states have been timid in saying “NO” to the Feds beginning with Roe v. Wade.

The time for said timidity to end is now.  It is past time for the states to stand up for their rights and for the rights of their people.  This is a time for defiance.

About the Consecration of Libby Lane - and of Philip North

I have said very little about the consecration of Libby Lane as the first woman bishop of the Church of England.  Unlike Paul Williamson, I am just not that worked up about it.  I can certainly think of any number of male bishops who are far more objectionable.

But seeing I am from the fire-breathing, gun-carrying Texas Anglican wing of the Holy Catholic Church, I suppose a few might want to know of my views so . . .

It may surprise that I do not personally find women bishops a communion breaker.  But I understand those who do.  I, too, consider breaking 2000 years of church tradition problematic at best.  Without going into details, I would prefer not to have women bishops over me, although I would much prefer an orthodox woman to an apostate man.

But that is part of the problem.  There may be robustly orthodox women bishops out there somewhere, but I cannot recall a one.  I can, however, recall any number of apostate women “bishops” who have done great harm to the church. (I should add here that Libby Lane seems more sensible than these.)  And that experience nudges me to think there is more to the church tradition of a male priesthood and episcopate than most give it credit for.  Perhaps women who lack compunction about this aspect of church tradition tend to be prone to disregard the rest of Tradition as well.  Perhaps such departure from apostolic tradition displeases the Lord and forfeits his blessing more than we think.  I do not presume to know, but I look upon recent church history and tremble.

But my biggest concern is how long will there be a place in the Church of England for those traditionalists and conservative evangelicals who wish to hold on more tightly to tradition, who object to women priests and bishops?  I am afraid not long at all.  I suspect the prevailing attitude is “We will tolerate those misogynist bigots out of our wonderful tolerant niceness . . . for now.”  This seems typical:

What, though, should we make of the consecration that will follow a week later, of a man who will not be touched by any hands that have treated a woman as if she were a real bishop. This seems an extraordinary concession towards a view of women, and of authority, that the vast majority of churchgoers regard as immoral and unchristian. Is it the chivalrous treatment of a defeated enemy, or a concession to the misogynist bigotry that has done so much to disfigure Christianity? Mr. [Philip] North may not have been responsible for these arrangements. An important point is that he is clearly going to make a good bishop, whatever his views on women. He has spent most of his career working among poor people in unfashionable places. If men of his views are to be promoted at all – as both archbishops have promised they will be – then he is clearly a well-qualified example, and may be almost as good at the job as many of the women who will follow Libby Lane. In the generous and joyful spirit that should attend her consecration, we will welcome his, as well. But mostly hers.

Methinks there will not be many more bishops like Philip North.  And that is what bothers me greatly.

Deflategate Gets Worse

Deflategate got worse for the Patriots and the NFL yesterday. 

In the morning, Coach Bill Belichick gave a press conference in which he was very credible.  But in the afternoon, QB Tom Brady’s presser did not go so well.  His assertion that he, a veteran NFL quarterback, did not notice the footballs were deflated particularly strained credulity.  I was watching NFL Live on ESPN, and former NFL QB Mark Brunell got a bit choked up afterwards and said he just did not believe Brady.  The rest of the panel, as well as others at ESPN, were almost as brutal.  And Troy Aikman afterwards opined on a Dallas radio station the following: "It's obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this." 

Ouch.

Now, in case any readers are - God forbid – not American football fans, know that deflated footballs that only one team are using are a big advantage.  The quarterback can grip the football better.  Receivers can catch the ball easier.  Ball carriers can hold on to the ball and avoid fumbles better.

And, lo and behold, the Patriots record of not fumbling at home is off the charts and hard to explain.  The 2014 Patriots are only the third team in 25 years to have never lost a fumble at home.  Read Warren Sharp’s close to damning statistical analysis for yourself, but the Patriots’ astounding fumble stats beg the question whether they were using deflated footballs at home all season and even before.

Yes, the legitimacy of the entire Patriots season is now under question.

Wednesday, I said that if the Patriots win the Super Bowl accompanied by perceived help from the refs, it would be a disaster for the NFL.  I now have to amend that.  If the Patriots win this Super Bowl at all, it will be at least perceived as tainted by millions, more so than any Super Bowl ever (Yes, even more so than the 2006 disgrace.), and therefore a disaster for the NFL.

The NFL is in a bad situation.  And I suspect nothing short of suspending Tom Brady from the Super Bowl will suffice to get them out of it.

That and rooting really hard for the Seahawks.

The Episcopal Church Cheerleads Lawless Tyranny … Of Course

Modern Mainline Protestant denominations have a history of aligning with tyranny, particularly that of a totalitarian bent.  See German Protestants under Hitler and the World Council of Churches and National Council of Churches during the time of Communist hegemony.

The Episcopal Church continues that tradition by supporting Obama’s dictatorial nullification of immigration law.

Yes, predictable, but I thought you should know.

Thanks to the Patriots, the NFL is in a Dangerous Position UPDATED

After the infamous SuperBowl XL in 2006 in which the refs, particularly one from Pittsburgh, helped the Steelers steal another Super Bowl, I was one year away from swearing off the NFL.  I decided that if there was another Super Bowl presented to the Steelers on a silver platter by the league in the near future, I would stop watching the NFL.

And that was something coming from this lifelong NFL fan.  Heck, I remember my Dallas mom being unhappy about the Ice Bowl.  I’ve had NFL Sunday Ticket for years.  But my attitude has long been that if I liked rigged sport, I would watch pro wrestling . . . and I don’t.

The reason I bring up this dark memory is I suspect millions of NFL fans are now at the same spot I was back in 2006.  2006 was the NFL’s fault – a ref from Pittsburgh for that Super Bowl?  Really?  But this time it is the Patriots’ fault for deflating footballs.  The NFL has good reason to be upset, and they are.

One source described the league as "disappointed ... angry ... distraught," after spending considerable time on the findings earlier Tuesday.

I expect they will crack down hard on the Patriots.  But more than footballs are in danger.  The NFL itself is.

For now if the NFL is to avoid lasting damage and massive fan defections, there is one thing that must not happen.  If the Patriots win the Super Bowl accompanied with a widespread perception that the refs helped them so to do, that would tip this Patriots scandal over into an NFL disaster.  I would not swear off the NFL, but I bet millions would at least become much less enthusiastic about the NFL should that happen.

And the refereeing would not have to be as outrageous as that in 2006.  There is already widespread hatred of the Patriots.  There is the earned perception that they cheat already with a current episode of such in the news.  A Patriots win in the Super Bowl would not be good for the NFL.  If there is the perception that the NFL helped it out with questionable calls, it could be disastrous, destroying already damaged NFL credibility and alienating fans.

No I am not a Patriots-hater.  But it is hard to miss that Patriots hate is that strong out there – and that the NFL has already had a bad season with scandals, bad calls (especially the Dez Bryant catch reversal), and more.  More than footballs are in danger of being deflated by the Patriots.  Fan loyalty is as well.

All the more reason to root for the Seahawks as I will.

-----

UPDATE:

Deflategate is getting worse.  Now there are reports the Ravens believe the Patriots used underinflated balls against them.  Remember that playoff game was not a blow out; the Ravens were up 14, twice.

And how many other times have the Patriots literally taken the air out of the ball?

Again, I am no Patriots hater . . . but I may be becoming one.  More importantly, the NFL must take strong steps to defend both the reality and the perception of “the integrity of the game.” 

So do not be surprised if they crack down on the Patriots, hard.

State of the Union Fun

I have mixed feelings about watching the State of the Union tonight.  I’ve often skipped it under Clinton and Obama because I sometimes do not respond well when lied to.

On the other hand, particularly outrageous lying can be so absurd, it can be fun.  So for that reason, I will probably watch tonight.  But I will watch accompanied by lots of good fisking and perhaps booze as well. 

Hey, do you expect me to get through an Obama SOTU alone?

I have not decided on the booze.  (And, no, I will not engage in drinking games.  I wish to survive this evening.)  But I have decided on at least three modes of fisking.  One is twitter, of course, where I will join in.  Another is Ace of Spaces (with the usual naughty language warning) where they will surely have a SOTU thread with lots of uproarious comments from morons, including me.

A lesser known place is the Midwest Conservative Journal with both live-blogging and comments.  There will be fewer there, but it will be a more erudite group for the most part.

I have decided against live-blogging here at my blog, but you may find me at the above.

If I come up with another good online spot, I will let you know.  Feel free to make suggestions in the comments.  Hey, we have to get through this evening somehow.

UPDATE:
The Ace of Spades Thread for Obama's "Trolling of the Nation" is up, again with a language warning.

Pope Francis? “Rabbits?” Really?

First, to be fair to Pope Francis, I agree with the tenor of his comments on having children.  There are times when having more and more children is irresponsible, such as when taking care of one’s current kids is already problematic.  And I like rabbits myself.  In fact, I recently bought a dwarf rabbit as a pet for a neighbor and have fallen in love with the darn adorable thing myself.

But his referring to breeding like “rabbits” is offensive and too easily taken as a cut on large families.  My best friends have seven boys.  They are all like family to me, and they are a wonderful family with more brain power than many universities.  They and families like them deserve more courtesy than that from Pope Francis.

I think the Pope meant well.  But I agree with Father Z (in an earlier context) that it is time for someone to quietly suggest to the Holy Father that he dial back the off-the-cuff comments.

Pope Francis Attacks Free Speech and Conservative RC Bloggers Are… Silent?

After Pope Francis’ comments which attacked free speech, practically blaming free speech for the Paris Islamonazi terrorist attacks, I thought any minute now the conservative popish bloggers will be chiming in with their usual excuses for Francis – he was misunderstood; taken out of context; misinterpreted due to language issues, etc.

Well, what I have found instead is . . . silence.  Now surely some conservative Roman Catholic somewhere has opined on the Pope’s comments, but I have searched the usual places, repeatedly, and not found anything.  The usual conservative apologists for Francis are very quiet on this matter.  (And I invite readers to post conservative Catholic blog posts on the topic in the comments.  Like I said, surely they are out there . . . somewhere.)

Now I do not want to call out any bloggers by name or presume motives.  After all, Francis has time and again put conservative Catholic bloggers in awkward positions due to his comments, and they have my sympathy.

But the silence is deafening.  Perhaps this time, Francis has gone beyond what even the most loyal conservative Catholics can defend.  If so, their response should not be silence.  Just the opposite.

For even popes need to held accountable.  And, to be frank, most of the conservative Catholic blogdom seems to be dropping the ball in so doing.

BREAKING: Duke Reverses Muslim Call to Prayer Decision

I do not yet know what prompted this other than a big stink.  Perhaps a major donor or two read them the riot act? Perhaps administration feared divisive tumult or worse on campus?

But whatever the cause Duke has reversed its decision to allow the amplified Muslim call to prayer from its Chapel bell tower.

Duke University has reversed itself, and announced Thursday afternoon it will not allow a Muslim call to prayer Friday from its iconic cathedral. [IT’S NOT A CATHEDRAL! – ed.]

The decision had met with widespread controversy.

“Duke remains committed to fostering an inclusive, tolerant and welcoming campus for all of its students,” said Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations. “However, it was clear that what was conceived as an effort to unify was not having the intended effect.”

I imagine it wasn’t.

----

By the way, yours truly made the Charlotte Observer article at the link.  Can you find me?

King George III and Obama

When I get into a really good rant about the U. S. Federal Government, I often note that the tyranny under Obama far exceeds the tyranny under George III that provoked the American Revolution.

Well, the Library of Congress, no less, has pretty much determined that I am . . . correct.

What would George III do when faced with a law he didn’t like?

Not even the King of England at the time of the American Revolution had the authority to suspend laws unilaterally, the Law Library expert wrote in a memorandum to the Senate committee tasked with responding to President Obama’s recent executive orders on the enforcement of immigration law.

One hundred years before the American Revolution, another British king had “attempted to suspend a number of laws,” contributing to the onset of the Glorious Revolution in England, a senior foreign-law specialist at the Law Library writes in the memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “King George III,” the specialist goes on to remind the committee, “was thus unable to enact or repeal any laws unilaterally without the involvement of Parliament.”

Now British friends will surely say that we Americans can come back if we like.  To which I say . . .

Don’t tempt me.

If the Republican Party continues enabling, instead of really opposing, Obama’s tyranny, I will be sorely tempted as it is.

Duke to Broadcast Muslim Call to Prayer

Before you even think I am a Duke hater, I am a Duke alum.  I graduated with honors.  So Duke-hate, no.  Duke-disgust? Oh, yes.

Duke will broadcast, yes with amplifiers, the Muslim Call to Prayer from the bell tower of its chapel tomorrow at 1pm.

I only wish I were joking.

Look, I have no problem with Muslims being allowed to have an UN-amplified call to prayer from a site other than the iconic Chapel.  But broadcasting it like this from the University Chapel is utter submission to Islam.  Which reminds me . . . Islam means "Submission," and so does Liberalism.

And let’s cut the crap that this is about tolerance.  Well, this is about “tolerance”, but Duke has already demonstrated it is not that interested in real tolerance:

Duke University has a long history of fostering political correctness and hypersensitivity, from Chick-Fil-A’s removal from campus, to hosting a the national Palestinian Solidarity Movement conference, and to canceling a pro-life event in their Women’s Center on campus.

It is more about Duke becoming yet another politically correct bad joke in higher education.

I hesitate to say what I would do tomorrow at 1pm if I were still a Duke student.  But I do hope current students show some good gumption and visibly refuse to submit.  Given their conduct at basketball games (which goes back to my day), I am confident in their ability to be creative about that.

Muslim Nations vs. Freedom of Speech

When someone is so bold as to call out adherents of Islam for such enormities as their hostility to free speech, the enabling appeasing multicultural crowd, including that in that White House, cries, “No, those are just extremists who have little to do with Islam!”

To which I say, “Pig manure!” particularly when it comes to hostility to free speech.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), comprised of 57 Muslim-majority nations, is arguably the broadest Islamic group in the world and includes a number of relatively moderate countries.  And they have been in the forefront of trying to criminalize free speech that is not respectful enough to “The Prophet” and his foolish followers.

The OIC, whose member states range from moderate U.S. allies such as Jordan to adversaries such as Iran, describes itself as the world’s largest international body after the United Nations. For more than a decade, “the collective voice of the Muslim world” has spread the belief that any insult directed against the Muslim faith or its prophet demands absolute suppression. Quashing “defamation of Islam” is enshrined as a chief objective in the organization’s charter.

With countless internal resolutions, relentless lobbying of the international community and block voting on resolutions advocating a prohibition on defamation of religion at the U.N., the OIC continuously pushes to silence criticism of Islam.

Read Patrick Poole’s article for more details.  Or you can try to say negative things about “The Prophet” in public in “moderate” Muslim countries and see how things go.

I suggest reading the article, but that’s just me.

---

Yes, I know there are Muslims who respect free speech, one of whom I praised yesterday.

They are a minority in Islam at best.

Mayor of Rotterdam Tells Fellow Muslims Who Do Not Appreciate Freedoms of West to…

I was tempted to conclude the above headline, but I wish to avoid naughty language.  Nonetheless, I heartily concur with the Mayor of Rotterdam’s comments.  And that they come from a Muslim is so much the better.

Appearing on live television just hours after the shootings, Mayor Aboutaleb said Muslims who 'do not like freedom can pack your bags and leave'.

Labour politician Ahmed Aboutaleb, a former journalist who was appointed mayor of the Dutch city in 2008, is known for his straight-forward stance on integration.

The 53-year-old won the praise of London-mayor Boris Johnson over his comments last week, attacking fellow Muslims who move to Western nations and refuse to accept the way of life. 

'It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,' Mayor Aboutaleb told Dutch current affairs program Nieuwsuur (Newshour).

'But if you don't like freedom, for heaven's sake pack your bags and leave.

'If you do not like it here because some humorists you don't like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.

'This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. 

'Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here. 

That so needs to be said, not just in the Netherlands and not just to Muslims.  The West, including the U. K. and the U. S., is being greatly undermined by various groups who appreciate neither the cultures nor the freedoms of their host countries and even act in opposition to them.  Such people need to be told in no uncertain terms where they should go.  

I best not expand on that (for now) lest I get on a really good rant.

Yes, I have had enough.  I am glad to see I am not the only one.

“Embarrassing the Nation He Leads”

I am embarrassed to be an American this morning.  A remarkable number of world leaders join over a million people to march against terrorism in Paris.  . . . And, thanks to Obama, America is AWOL.  The highest official the Obama Regime sends to participate is the U. S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley.

And even her presence is embarrassing:

“The highest U.S. official at the march yesterday over there was the U.S. ambassador over there who was a big Obama donor who got that job in part because of her contributions to President Obama,” New York Times reporter Jonathan Martin observed.

Those appalled include Democrats and even some in the news media.

As for me, I am at a loss.  This is a day of shame for America.

Oh, that quote in the headline?  It is from self-professed Lefty Democrat Rick Ungar.

But I guess everyone is just quibbling.

Muslims Not Alone in Attacking Free Speech

If you think attacking free speech in the West is just a Muslim thing, think again.  Here in the U. S., Leftists are in the vanguard of attacking Freedom of Speech.  Take Tanya Cohen, for example . . . please:

Like any sensible person, I am a strong believer in the unalienable right to freedom of speech and I understand that defending freedom of speech is the most important when it’s speech that many people do not want to hear (like, for example, pro-LGBT speech in Russia). Freedom of speech is the core of any democratic society, and it’s important that freedom of speech be strongly respected and upheld. Censorship in all of its forms is something that must always be fiercely opposed. But we must never confuse hate speech with freedom of speech. Speech that offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, incites hatred or violence, and/or violates basic human rights and freedoms has absolutely no place in even the freest society.

Yes, slightly contradictory. “I am a strong believer in the unalienable right to freedom of speech . . .” unless it “offends” - presumably that offends her or her preferred “minorities.”  She is all for free speech unless she really does not like it.

And she is not alone, not by any means, not even in the United States.

I do have to note there has been speculation that Cohen’s missives are satire. Michael Walsh seems convinced this is not satire.  I think it is not as well, but I also think it wise to include this disclaimer. 

This is a problem with so much coming from the Left nowadays – it is so absurd, it is sometimes not easy to tell what is satire and what is not.  

Which makes the job of those who engage in satire that much harder.

By the way, if someone thinks this post or this blog for that matter is a no-no because it “demeans” and/or “offends,” go pound sand.  Oh, did I just “disrespect”? GOOD! You want respect? Then respect my freedom!

----

Yet another hat tip to the Ace of Spades people, who have a wonderful nose for the absurd fascism of the Left.